tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post114090695875895761..comments2023-08-24T18:26:14.508-07:00Comments on Pragmatarianism: Fallibilism vs FairnessXerographicahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-17088458992806135502012-03-02T15:41:26.810-08:002012-03-02T15:41:26.810-08:00Heh, who doesn't want to have the last word! ...Heh, who doesn't want to have the last word! There are a few major differences between Zwolinski and myself...but one major one is that I wouldn't ban somebody from my blog just because I disagreed with their point of few.<br /><br />If you get a chance you should read this post where I discuss my perspective on my failure to encourage Zwolinski to consider the economic arguments...<a href="http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/02/banned-from-bleeding-heart-libertarians.html" rel="nofollow">Banned From Bleeding Heart Libertarian</a>.<br /><br />Thanks for the two cents. If you get a chance I'd be interested in hearing your two cents on pragmatarianism as well!Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-42122116572232629452012-03-01T05:54:24.302-08:002012-03-01T05:54:24.302-08:00Looks like you both wanted to have the last word, ...Looks like you both wanted to have the last word, and Zwolinski invoked the nuclear option. Sometimes the most effective persuader is one who does not get himself banned from websites.<br /><br />That said, it looks like you and Zwolinski are very similar in that regard. And probably me, too. <br /><br />Just my two cents. Keep up the good blog.RP Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15028013805248797978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-82088660979426538662012-02-18T21:14:03.075-08:002012-02-18T21:14:03.075-08:00To Zwolinski:
Your calculation is in error.
You ...To Zwolinski:<br /><br />Your calculation is in error.<br /><br />You demand obligation upon another where no such obligation can exist without FIRST using violence upon non-violent people to enforce it.<br /><br />Thus, to solve a problem, you create evil as a solution to a problem you mistaken as evil because you infuse your SUBJECTIVE emotionalism to the problem as if it was an OBJECTIVE value.<br /><br />The measure:<br />A child is drowning and I do not exist.<br />No effort of a non-existent entity changes the circumstance.<br />NO ACTION means NO ACTION. This is self-evident.<br />A "NO Action" cannot be measured to be an EVIL act - since NO action is NO action.<br /><br />A person does not act to save the child.<br />The exact same conditions exist as if the person did not exist.<br /><br />Therefore, the same reasoning applies - such a "no" action cannot be measured to be an EVIL act - since NO action is NO action.<br /><br />You measure some bizarre sense of capability, potential, etc. as if it was exactly equal to the ACT of such capability/potential.<br /><br />Your calculation:<br />"IF you CAN do it equals YOU MUST DO IT"<br /><br />But even you cannot assume to agree that this statement is always true.<br /><br />YET, you demand it true in this particular circumstance - without any merit to why -now- it is true.<br /><br />To overcome your inherent contradiction, you advocate the application of violence - thus, increasing the evil and the contradictions.<br /><br />The root of your problem:<br />You do not assign the causation - hence responsibility - of the problem correctly.<br /><br />The child drowning in the pool IS NOT MY FAULT.<br /><br />If I did not exist, thus cannot do anything, ... nothing changes for the child - SINCE I WAS NOT THE FAULT.<br /><br />If I do nothing, nothing changes for the child - SINCE I WAS NOT THE FAULT.<br /><br />To demand obligation where there is no responsibility is puerile , and incredibly dangerous when one advocates violence to enforce such obligation.Black Flagnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-13541782579719886272012-02-18T20:55:40.567-08:002012-02-18T20:55:40.567-08:00Xero,
Though I do disagree with the premise of yo...Xero,<br /><br />Though I do disagree with the premise of your personal Pragamatism.... <br /><br />...I have to admit, you did so very well in exposing your adversaries contradictions.<br /><br />...and as you have probably experienced often, such exposure makes the author embarrassed.<br /><br />His choice, then, is to either improve his position by thinking harder <br />or<br />ignoring and suppressing you.<br /><br />Thus, he is ignorant, as he chose the second.<br /><br />PS: I will copy and utilize many of your points and call them my own... and I do not pay royalties.... :)Black Flagnoreply@blogger.com